| Kyros said: [quote] 95% of reviews have said that it plays sucky too . Now it apparently has sales success but perhaps people are so disgusted with it that they will learn for the next time. One can only hope. |
Well, that would be because 95% (or whatever the real number is) of reviews have been written by people who have previously convinced themselves that 'random waggling' is the way the game is played, they then proceed to randomly waggle and find out it doesn't work that way.
Of course the rational response to that would be to experiment with the controls and find out how delightfully subtle and accurate they are, but hey, there's a deadline for the review so lets instead just write that it sucks.
Really.
What you need to look at is the 5% (or whatever the real number is) of reviews that took the time to play the game for fun and not for laughs.
I find it hard to believe that others did not see at E3 2008 what I saw. I saw a game that did music so well that it needed serious practice to get it right, that was so hard to master that they could only just demonstrate it doing something and couldn't demonstrate - because they hadn't practised enough together - other than badly. It looked to me like the first run through of a good play by an inexperienced cast, or the first rehearsal of good music by an amateur orchestra. Now it might be that because I've seen both those situations at first hand, and often, that I then saw past the performance to the potential.
But to take from E3 2008 a hate for the game and carry it forward for six months despite all the evidence to the contrary from people who have played it enough to see what it is capable of?
That is not good. And not just in the business-ethical sense. In the moral sense.
Luddites.
